HARTFORD — Connecticut's candidates for governor spent close to $13 million in public campaign financing in this past election. Outside "independent" special interests spent an estimated $17 million on the same race, a fact critics say is proof the system is broken beyond repair.

Supporters of the taxpayer-financed program — which spent a record $32 million on all state races in 2014 — insist it's not too late to correct at least some of the problems.

At least a dozen bills already have been filed by Republicans in the 2015 General Assembly to repeal or reform Connecticut's once-heralded Citizen's Election Program. But the fate of the bills proposed by the Republicans is uncertain in a Democrat-controlled legislature.

The proposals include outright repeal of the program, cutting the public financing grants handed out to qualifying state candidates, eliminating public funding for candidates who are running unopposed, and placing more restrictions on who can give money to the state Democratic and Republican campaign committees.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission, the agency that runs the public financing system, is planning to meet Tuesday to discuss its own reform proposals.

The difficulty will be finding any change that is politically feasible. Republicans maintain that repeal or major reforms are desperately needed, as they float specific proposals. Democrats, who control the General Assembly, appear divided over the reform issue.

Connecticut's "Clean Elections" system of public financing for state races was enacted after the 2004 scandals that surrounded the resignation and later corruption conviction of ex-Gov. John Rowland, who is now awaiting sentencing on a different set of federal campaign corruption charges.

'No Longer Clean'

The intent of the clean-election laws was to severely limit special interest contributions from lobbying groups, state contractors and others interested in influencing the outcome of elections.

"It is no longer clean and bears no resemblance to what was once heralded as a paragon of good government," House Republican Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, said recently of Connecticut's troubled public financing system.

State Republican Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. said he hopes the legislature makes some changes. "Certainly, there are many aspects of [the public financing system] that leave a lot to be desired," he said.

"We do have to get serious about reforms in anticipation of the next round of elections in 2016," said House Speaker Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden. Still, he said, he isn't sure what reforms are needed or possible.

But the top Senate Democratic leader, Martin M. Looney of New Haven, said he doesn't believe any significant revisions are necessary. "There may be some tweaks we can make," he said, "but I don't see any need for fundamental changes."

"It's safe to say we will oppose any proposals to eliminate or weaken the program," said Joshua Foley, an SEEC attorney. Foley said reforms the commission will consider are likely to include those that strengthen controls over the outside "dark" money that flooded into Connecticut's 2014 governor's race.

Democratic incumbent Dannel Malloy and his Republican challenger, Tom Foley, each got close to $6.5 million in public financing for the campaign. But the vast amounts spent by the outside critics and supporters on TV ads, consultants, telephone banks and other campaign-related items played a "substantial" role in the contest, said Joshua Foley (who is not related to Tom Foley).

The SEEC staff is now preparing a final accounting of the money, public and private, that was spent on the 2014 elections for governor, state constitutional officers and state House and Senate campaigns. (Connecticut law has no authority over congressional elections.)

Malloy beat Foley by about 25,000 votes in 2014, a far larger margin than when he defeated Foley four years earlier.

The Key That Unlocked The Door

The key to allowing in all that special-interest money was the U.S. Supreme Court "Citizens United" ruling. The court's decision effectively meant that corporations, unions, individuals and lobbying groups could spend as much as they wanted on campaigns as long as those "independent expenditures" weren't "coordinated" with a particular candidate's campaign.

"It was probably the worst decision [the Supreme Court] made in the last 25 years," Sharkey said. "It really had an impact, forcing a terrific public financing program here in Connecticut to regroup."

Joshua Foley also noted that, "In most races, independent expenditures were not a factor."

State officials say that more than 80 percent of Connecticut's state candidates decided to take part in the public campaign financing program. It covers House and Senate races, as well as those for governor and constitutional offices such as attorney general and treasurer.

The fact that so many state candidates are participating in the public financing system is the reason the system's defenders cite for keeping it intact. "I think we still have the best reform system of campaign financing existing in this country," Looney said.

No one, however, disputes the influence that massive amounts of outside money is likely to have on Connecticut elections in the future. Joshua Foley said one way the SEEC might seek to reduce that impact is to enact a tougher definition of what it means for an outside group to "coordinate spending" with a candidate.

He said tightening up such definitions could ultimately "rein in independent expenditures."

In order to qualify for public financing in Connecticut, a candidate must agree to spending limits and raise specified amounts in small contributions from individuals. Those limits and qualifying contribution thresholds vary depending on the types of races, as do the size of the public grants candidates can get.

Some critics ask why the system provides reduced public grants to candidates who are running unopposed. Sharkey defends that part of the program, insisting that "you still have to get a message out … even without an opponent."

The impact of the outside money unleashed by the Citizens United decision initially was felt in Connecticut in 2012. One Republican-oriented independent political action committee spent about $500,000 in the final weeks of that campaign in an unsuccessful effort to defeat several Democratic Senate candidates.

In 2013, General Assembly Democrats quickly responded by allowing state party committees to spend unlimited amounts as a way of countering counter such outside expenditures. They also increased contribution limits to such committees from $5,000 to $10,000 for private individuals.

Republicans howled that the Democratic changes allowed state contractors to "get back in the game" and contribute tens of thousands of dollars by allowing them to give money to state parties or national groups that funneled money back to Connecticut.

Democrats called such GOP complaints spurious, since most Republicans voted against the public financing system in the first place.

"It's hypocritical to say to the public, 'We're going to do it clean, clean, clean,' but then somebody can get their family to give money to the state party and the state party can turn around and give the money back to the candidate," Klarides said. "That doesn't pass the smirk test."

Wide Range Of Proposed Legislation

The SEEC is now investigating allegations involving out-of-state fundraising by Connecticut candidates and whether that money given to national groups was indirectly sent back to help those candidates.

Joshua Foley said virtually all of the bills relating to changing or canceling the public financing system have been proposed before in the General Assembly. The current measures include bills to:

•Eliminate the entire public financing system. It was filed by Rep. John E. Piscopo, a Republican representing four northwestern Connecticut towns.

•Place a $250,000 limit on the amount of money a state party committee could contribute to a candidate for governor. The bill's sponsor is Rep. Kurt Vail, a Republican representing Somers and Stafford. There is now no limit on such contributions.

•Prohibit any taxpayer campaign grants to candidates who are running unopposed. At present, such candidates can qualify for reduced public grants. The bill was submitted by Rep. Gail Lavielle, a Republican representing portions of Norwalk and Westport.